Assessing and addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a West Texas Free Clinic through motivational interview-guided intervention

Esere A Nesiama, Rachel Vopni, Nayeli Fuentes, Fiona R. Prabhu, Kelly Bennett
{"title":"Assessing and addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a West Texas Free Clinic through motivational interview-guided intervention","authors":"Esere A Nesiama, Rachel Vopni, Nayeli Fuentes, Fiona R. Prabhu, Kelly Bennett","doi":"10.12746/swrccc.v10i45.1071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background \nVaccine hesitancy is a public health issue that threatens successful prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases. The Free Clinic at Lubbock Impact serves rural, West Texas uninsured patients. In recognition of low vaccination rates among this population, an initiative was undertaken to better understand factors contributing to COVID-19 vaccine reluctance and conduct interventions to reduce hesitancy. \nMethodology \nPatients at the Free Clinic between January 2022 and March 2022 received a voluntary survey regarding their COVID-19 vaccination status, perceived barriers to vaccination, and factors influencing vaccination status with Likert-scale response options. Following the first 3 weeks of data collection, an educational intervention was designed and implemented for unvaccinated participants. The intervention included a motivational interview, pamphlet review, and exit survey to assess future likelihood of vaccination. \nResults \n  \nA total of 161 survey responses were obtained from the initial survey with a total unique patient population of 138. Of the 138 unique patients surveyed, 73 reported as vaccinated and 65 reported as not vaccinated against COVID-19. For hesitancy factors among unvaccinated participants, the mode for the “Extremely Important” hesitancy factor was “Personal Preference”. \n  \n37 of the 41 unvaccinated participants who received an intervention reported liking the discussion of the COVID-19 vaccine (90.2%), 4 reported they were not interested (9.8%), and 0 reported disliking the intervention. Half of the respondents indicated an increased likelihood of future vaccination. \n  \nConclusion \nThe goal of reducing vaccine hesitancy at The Free Clinic was successful. These findings support the benefits of openness to educational interventions among vulnerable populations. \n  \n ","PeriodicalId":22976,"journal":{"name":"The Southwest Respiratory and Critical Care Chronicles","volume":"33 1-2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Southwest Respiratory and Critical Care Chronicles","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12746/swrccc.v10i45.1071","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background Vaccine hesitancy is a public health issue that threatens successful prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases. The Free Clinic at Lubbock Impact serves rural, West Texas uninsured patients. In recognition of low vaccination rates among this population, an initiative was undertaken to better understand factors contributing to COVID-19 vaccine reluctance and conduct interventions to reduce hesitancy. Methodology Patients at the Free Clinic between January 2022 and March 2022 received a voluntary survey regarding their COVID-19 vaccination status, perceived barriers to vaccination, and factors influencing vaccination status with Likert-scale response options. Following the first 3 weeks of data collection, an educational intervention was designed and implemented for unvaccinated participants. The intervention included a motivational interview, pamphlet review, and exit survey to assess future likelihood of vaccination. Results   A total of 161 survey responses were obtained from the initial survey with a total unique patient population of 138. Of the 138 unique patients surveyed, 73 reported as vaccinated and 65 reported as not vaccinated against COVID-19. For hesitancy factors among unvaccinated participants, the mode for the “Extremely Important” hesitancy factor was “Personal Preference”.   37 of the 41 unvaccinated participants who received an intervention reported liking the discussion of the COVID-19 vaccine (90.2%), 4 reported they were not interested (9.8%), and 0 reported disliking the intervention. Half of the respondents indicated an increased likelihood of future vaccination.   Conclusion The goal of reducing vaccine hesitancy at The Free Clinic was successful. These findings support the benefits of openness to educational interventions among vulnerable populations.    
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过动机性访谈引导干预评估和解决西德克萨斯州免费诊所COVID-19疫苗犹豫问题
疫苗犹豫是一个公共卫生问题,威胁到疫苗可预防疾病的成功预防。拉伯克影响的免费诊所服务于德克萨斯州西部农村地区没有保险的病人。认识到这一人群的疫苗接种率较低,开展了一项倡议,以更好地了解导致不愿接种COVID-19疫苗的因素,并开展干预措施以减少犹豫。方法2022年1月至2022年3月期间,免费诊所的患者接受了一项自愿调查,内容包括他们的COVID-19疫苗接种状况、疫苗接种的感知障碍以及影响疫苗接种状况的因素。在收集数据的前三周后,对未接种疫苗的参与者设计并实施了教育干预。干预措施包括动机访谈、小册子审查和出口调查,以评估未来接种疫苗的可能性。结果从初始调查中获得了161个调查回复,总共有138个独特的患者群体。在接受调查的138名独特患者中,73人报告接种了COVID-19疫苗,65人报告未接种疫苗。对于未接种疫苗的参与者的犹豫因素,“极其重要”犹豫因素的模型为“个人偏好”。41名接受干预的未接种疫苗的参与者中有37人报告喜欢COVID-19疫苗的讨论(90.2%),4人报告不感兴趣(9.8%),0人报告不喜欢干预。半数答复者表示今后接种疫苗的可能性增加。结论自由诊所减少疫苗犹豫的目标是成功的。这些发现支持对弱势群体开放教育干预的好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Management of post-extubation anxiety in the intensive care unit Nafcillin-induced thrombocytopenia: An uncommon complication Subacute inferior vena cava occlusion after treatment for advanced colorectal cancer: presentation and management Update-Exposure to dust events and hospitalizations in West Texas cities: The human health consequences of dust Cardiopulmonary exercise testing in post-COVID-19 patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1